lendaddy, you're not paying attention. Rove failed to question the classification status. This isn't a crime but might be a possible violation of his security clearance. Lying about it will get him into a lot more hot water though.

Shaun, Rove and Libby learned it from the reporters, [that she worked for the CIA]. She was already "out" so no...how could they have been involved if they learned atleast 3rd hand?

Just be patient Joel, more will come out.

Fair enough, if that's SOP I wouldn't know (but it does make sense to me). If they are suppose to do that and did not I guess they screwed up there. But it seems a touch grab-ass to me compared to the charges.

True, I agree that there is more to come. But you and I are outing her as we speak, just a few more degrees separated from the source than Rove and Libby:)

Wanted to ask another question. Did he actually lie about this? Or are you assuming he has/will?

I think Rove is congenitally incapable of such a thing.

The white house has clearly stated on several occasions that 'anyone involved' will be fired.

Personally, I hope and expect that this will be yet another promise they will not keep.

Good thing they weren't involved! Whew that was close:)

Just curious, how many of the strict interpreters of the law here were ever defending Clinton.

Some of same guys who are splitting hairs on this throw the word "treason" out every chance they get to defend their partisan politics. Man, you lose all credibility doing that.

I still don't understand what lie Clinton said and I don't know if Rove did anything illegal. It's just partisan politics as normal right now.

OK, so now we've got to add "involved" to the list:

"is"

"last throes"

etc.

You guys on the Right have short memories. Integrity... get some. Have the f*cking balls to say Rove was "involved" after the whole Clinton "is" thing. Bad role models for our children, that's for sure.

Next you'll be saying Rove and Libby never even talked with McClellan about this. Didn't happen. What dorks.

Lol, I know you guys desperatley wanted a gotch here, but it ain't gonna happen.

Here's a hint: Something must actually be done wrong.

Shaun, you're all hung up on the McClellan thing right? Ok he said they weren't involved in this right? Well, how were they? Novak calls and says "hey I'm printing this about Plame in two days". And you think Rove and Libby are involved? It's out man, O.U.T. You cannot be involved in something that has already occured.

I know it's a pisser, but you'll get one of em someday I'm sure:)

I'm not assuming anything. Rove can say that he did comment about the Willson's wife and shouldn't have because he didn't know if the information was declassified or not. Given the level of his security clearance and the fact he works for the President it's unlikely he will have face anything more than a verbal reprimand.

Federal employees, like Rove, have to follow these silly rules and regulations governing employee conduct. When it has been determined that a rule or regulation has been violated corrective action should be taken. This can be anything from a simple discussion to terminating employment.

On the other hand, these same rules and regulations state that employees must cooperate with official investigations. Not cooperating or lying during an investigation can lead to a fine and/or imprisonment.

Man, were you on the moon at the time?

Man I wish I could live in your world. 'nuff said!

I voted for Clinton and would again. Under the same circumstances I would lie and so would most married men. What I don't understand is why the conservatives don't go after the clergy for molesting our children. Is their silence tacit approval?

Ok, Somebody told Novak. Novak wrote his article and it was set to publish in two days. Rove learned of this two days before you and I did, and was not the leak, but you want to call him involved?

Involved in what? Seriously.

It is nice here:)

Not on the moon, but not on the bandwagon that swept this country at the time.

But when everyone was saying he lied about Monica. Well, he didn't. My strict conservative Christian background says he had foreplay with her and not sexual intercourse, which is what I hear when people say "sex".

So was there a different direct lie he said?

Maybe the guys defending Rove can provide an answer??

He claimed he "did not have sexual relations with that woman"

This was a lie, even if you try to weasle on what is "sex" it's still a lie. He did it under oath AND with his stinky finger in my face. If you don't consider getting blown and trying to pack your crooked stick into a fat chicks brown eye "sexual relations" then you need a new dictionary.

Anyway, he lost his law license for contempt of court. If she were a year or so younger he would be in jail for molestation. If he were a business manager he would have been sued and fired. Oh nevermind.

This Rove thing may be a back-fire for the Dem's. They should have waited for the Special Prosecutor to finish before jumping in.

imo.. the game is the mid-term elections next year. The Dem's have an opportunity to capture some House seats if they manage the game correctly. There should be over 15 House seats the Rep's have that are vulnerable. Portraying the Rep's as a bunch of corrupt, extremist, out of touch pol's should be done with proper timing. It's not as if the Dem's have a better positive public perception without core policies either. The Dem's can win only on Rep weakness, not on Dem strengths. When the NY Times and Washington Post + agree that "no underlying crime" was committed I would surmise that it's time to wait out the Special Prosecutor.

well Joel.. I don't consider foreplay "sexual relations". Never have and never will. Not in my dictionary. Sexual relations = coitus. that's it.

His contempt was not for lying but for misleading statements which lawyers are not supposed to do.

His license was only suspended until 2006 from what I could find.


The other are what ifs? Sued by who?

This is much the same here for Rove. Did he lie or mislead with his answers?